Aurélien Antoine is Professor of Public Law and Director of the Brexit Observatory.
FIGAROVOX.
- Can this Brexit agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union be described as a victory for Boris Johnson?
Did he pull off real concessions, especially on the hotly contested subject of fishing?
Aurélien ANTOINE.
-
A legal text when it is written, in particular in a completely new framework, does not reveal all its potentialities.
We have had in history remarkably well written texts on paper which have proved to be not entirely satisfactory.
And conversely, texts sometimes very flexible and broad which have had a significant longevity.
We will have to see what this gives in practice, since it is a text which is very broad.
Read also:
EU leaders signed the post-Brexit agreement on the eve of the historic divorce
We can consider that in fishing there is a desire to balance certain things on both sides but it is certain that Boris Johnson gave in.
It's a reciprocal concession which is still strong on the British side, but the British have obtained other things on other fronts.
We cannot really isolate one issue from another, insofar as what has been concluded in each area has justified our being more flexible in others.
It is therefore as a whole that the agreement must be assessed.
Hasn't the United Kingdom arrived at its idyllic vision of the relationship between the British and the EU, that is to say both a form of possibility to take advantage of the common market without having the burden of l political integration?
We cannot give answers now, we will have to see what the practice gives.
The EU has concluded many trade agreements with third countries without always asking whether it is losing out.
We really have to consider this agreement as a completely original text which will have to be tested in practice.
On the other hand, we cannot say that the British have succeeded in their “
cherry-picking
” (selecting only the facts and things that suit them).
This agreement is obviously less favorable to the British compared to their previous situation in the single market
It is an agreement that goes much further on certain aspects than the agreement between the British and Canada, particularly in the exchange of goods.
In other respects, this agreement is obviously less favorable to the British compared to their previous situation in the single market.
We must be aware, for example, that they no longer have a financial passport, that the question on financial services is not resolved, and that with regard to the recognition of professional qualifications we are very far from a situation equivalent to that which was theirs when they were a member of the EU.
In addition, there will be customs formalities which will have a real financial cost.
There will undoubtedly be charges linked to additional administrative work.
These are not taxes, but new formalities take time.
Time in business is money.
There will therefore inevitably be repercussions on prices.
We are therefore quite far from “
cherry-picking
”.
Some see in this agreement the shadow of David Cameron ...
It is a legal text and as a jurist, what matters is first to understand what this agreement contains.
It will always be possible to leave it to historians or political scientists to explain behind the scenes, but I do not believe that this is the most important as I speak to you.
Many people intervened in this negotiation and I find it hard to see Boris Johnson relying on David Cameron.
Above all, I see in this agreement the imprint of negotiators who worked hard until the last moment and who arrived at a result which is unique in recent history in less than five years!
It is the analysis of the text and its implementation that will allow us to say what will be the nature of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU.
To read also:
Surprise reconfinements in England: "Boris Johnson's political capital is gradually shrinking"
Lawyers are best able to tell you the meaning of a particular provision, to consider their potential impacts and to make the vocabulary used understood.
For example, the system applicable to State aid (which has long been a problem in negotiations) is very interesting to study in order to understand the originality of the draft agreement and the significance of the vocabulary of European Union law.
I don't think it can be said that the British got everything they wanted, and that the Union succeeded in fully meeting the ambitions of last year's political declaration (which was attached to the treaty Release).
After a rather difficult year with in particular a somewhat brutal passage of London in “Tier 4” during Christmas, this agreement can it help Boris Johnson to bounce back?
What political consequences will this agreement have?
First, there are short-term political consequences.
It's a success, it's better than
No Deal
.
Johnson nevertheless obtained a certain balance on points which posed a problem.
He did not completely win compared to his ambitions - which were not always precise - at the start of the year.
He applied the Conservative agenda of December 2019, which was sometimes vague.
It is therefore a one-off success.
Managing the covid crisis and its aftermath seems even more important to me
It's a short-term success and we won't know if he won his Brexit bet until the end of his term, in 2024 (and if there is no dissolution before).
The Covid worries the British much more than this agreement there, and we will very quickly return to reality, given the "
gift at the foot of the tree
" according to Boris Johnson's words of December 24.
It is therefore a one-off success.
Managing the covid crisis and its aftermath seems even more important to me.
Boris Johnson will have to show a more coherent and readable policy.
